War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength, Copyright is Freedom

In 1949, George Orwell released a novel entitled "1984." In 1984, Apple Computer released a commercial that was shown once, during the Super Bowl, in which director Ridley Scott adapted the broad themes of Orwell's novel. That commercial was never broadcast again because in 1981, George Orwell's widow, Sonia, sold the rights to her late husband's novel to Gina Rosenblum. Owing to various extensions and adjustments, Orwell's novel will be protected by copyright until at least 2044. And Rosenblum sent a "cease-and-desist" letter forbidding further broadcast of the Apple commercial.

One of the reasons 2007 is increasingly like "1984," is that the common response to legal saber-rattling like Rosenblum's is the suppression of arguably fair and legal speech. While Apple's commercial obviously pointed towards Orwell's novel, it also invoked a broader tradition of dystopian science fiction. The direct connection to Orwell is made explicit only by the commercial's final namecheck of the novel. With the result that a novel underscoring the importance of human freedom is now the source of litigation that erases speech.

Imagine if the novel in question had been a novel in the public domain, perhaps a commercial stating, use Travelocity and we'll make sure your vacation doesn't end up like "Robinson Crusoe." One question worth asking is whether we wish, as a culture, to be precluded from ever referencing the title of a novel (or other similar cultural artifact) as a point of contrast. I am tempted to believe that Apple SHOULD have litigated the narrow question of whether saying something "won't be like '1984'" is sufficient to sustain a charge of infringement on the underlying copyright.

Admittedly, the combination of dystopian imagery paired with the invocation of the title put Apple in a weak enough position that it was probably prudent to bury the commercial (at least nominally, as the above link indicates, the commercial is easy to see in an Internet context, and is often included in compilation programs featuring the best or most impactful commercials, Super Bowl commercials).

But even if we acknowledge some grounds for Rosenblum's complaint against Apple, her position in the current case is weak.

Why?

PARODY! PARODY! PARODY! PARODY! PARODY!

Phil de Vellis' remarkable mash-up blends elements of the original Apple ad with Hilary Clinton campaign speeches. Thus, the dystopian landscape of the commercial is now significantly detached from even indirect invocation of the Orwell novel. The effect is similar to an editorial cartoon that casts administration officials in the rolse of the lead characters in a recent film. (Do I hear Dick Cheney as Darth Vader?) The ONLY point of connection between de Vellis' mash-up and the Orwell novel is the closing title card which reads:

On January 14th, the Democratic primary will begin. And you'll see why 2008 won't be like "1984."

As far as I know, this is non-commercial political speech. de Vellis is, in a non-commercial context, expressing his support for Barack Obama by critiquing Hillary Clinton. That seems a pretty baseline American freedom.

Gina Rosenblum apparently believes that her purchase of the "1984" copyright allows her not only to control adaptations and derivatives of the Orwell novel, but also to enjoin references to the title of the novel as a shorthand reference to an ugly, oppressive future.

I have this to say to Gina Rosenblum. Your purchase of that copyright does not make you lord of the flies. Your invocation of this supposed right, and the prospect that it will be taken seriously by our courts is an American tragedy. It is events like these that leave me dreaming of a brave, new world in which attitudes like yours are gone with the wind.